Dropped Cable TV Today

[bUU]

I saved a lot of money as an early adopter of DVRs. That cost advantage is pretty much gone. If the FCC has its way, and the new STB competition ruling is implemented, that early adopter advantage will be completely gone.

 

[Chuckanut]

IMHO, the Tivo OTA Roamio DVR makes free OTA TV very workable and convenient. IIRC, the new model comes with a slightly bigger hard drive (1 TB) and lifetime guide service (the DVR's life, not yours).

 

[mpeirce]

IMHO, the Tivo OTA Roamio DVR makes free OTA TV very workable and convenient. IIRC, the new model comes with a slightly bigger hard drive (1 TB) and lifetime guide service (the DVR's life, not yours).

My DM has a TiVo Bolt she uses with an OTA antenna. No cable for her! The TiVo also has Netflix and Amazon Prime video which she watches as well.

Works great for her with her 1 TV. She uses her iPad with the TiVo app to watch "her morning show" during breakfast in the other room.

 

[namesbond]

I use an Xbox One with the media remote, ir blaster to control my TV/soundbar, and the OTA tuner. My internet is $35.00 per month and I subscribe to SlingTV for $21.00 and am an Amazon Prime subscriber. I also buy NBA League Pass and NFL Gamepass each year. Plus I have tons of movies ripped onto my PC which is running as a PLEX server for my Xbox One.

 

[zinger1457]

IMHO, the Tivo OTA Roamio DVR makes free OTA TV very workable and convenient. IIRC, the new model comes with a slightly bigger hard drive (1 TB) and lifetime guide service (the DVR's life, not yours).

Can't speak for Tivo's DVR's but my experience using DVR's from both DISH and DirecTV for the past 10 years is that you'll be lucky to get 2 years out of it before the hard drive starts going bad. I suspect Tivo would have the same issue, should count on the need to do a hard drive replacement, probably right after the warranty expires.

 

[Chuckanut]

Can't speak for Tivo's DVR's but my experience using DVR's from both DISH and DirecTV for the past 10 years is that you'll be lucky to get 2 years out of it before the hard drive starts going bad. I suspect Tivo would have the same issue, should count on the need to do a hard drive replacement, probably right after the warranty expires.

My discussions with TiVo owners indicates that the TiVo is very reliable. If and when the HD needs to be replaced it is an easy and not expensive option. Same for the power supply. Mine has gone nearly 3 times the warranty.


The worst decisions are made when angry or impatient.

 

[bUU]

Can't speak for Tivo's DVR's but my experience using DVR's from both DISH and DirecTV for the past 10 years is that you'll be lucky to get 2 years out of it before the hard drive starts going bad. I suspect Tivo would have the same issue, should count on the need to do a hard drive replacement, probably right after the warranty expires.

I replaced my TiVo S3 hard drive immediately after purchase, because it was less expensive to do that than to buy a TiVo S3 with a 1TB drive installed in the factory. It had never given me an ounce of trouble over the eight plus years we used that TiVo. If you're worried about hard disk life of the stock hard drives (and don't want to do the manual work necessary to put TiVo onto a hard drive you buy), then buy your TiVo Bolt from Weaknees, making sure you select one of the options where you get a better (or bigger) hard drive.

My discussions with TiVo owners indicates that the TiVo is very reliable. If and when the HD needs to be replaced it is an easy and not expensive option. Same for the power supply. Mine has gone nearly 3 times the warranty.

Yes, very easy, from what I've heard, though I've never needed to capitalize on the resources available, in the almost 15 years we've used TiVos.

 

[Z3Dreamer]

18 months into cord cutting. Cable fees avoided $2,200. Costs incurred (both setup and ongoing) $875. Since I just paid the lifetime fee for my DVR programming, ongoing costs will be zero, resulting in monthly savings of $124.

I already had Netflix and Amazon Prime so I don't count that in above figures. Of course, I may subscribe to Sling TV during Football/March Madness. This would lower monthly savings to $100.

 

[folivier]

"One thing I've noticed: the streaming channels often force ads when you are watching a show."

But there are options available to watch without advertisements. Just have to pay for them....

 

[W2R]

I remember back in the 1980's, when Cable TV's main allure was that they would never had ads.

It's interesting that Cable TV companies have not tried providing a higher priced ad-free option in recent years, to keep people from ditching cable. It seems as though they don't mind the latter at all.

I wonder if some cable companies' plan is to discourage cable TV and just provide cable internet to those who are streaming. Then they can raise the price on that.

I am already paying $73/month just for mid grade cable internet alone. That is one cable I can't ditch, because of the near monopoly on high speed internet access.

 

[Dawg52]

I am already paying $73/month just for mid grade cable internet alone. That is one cable I can't ditch, because of the near monopoly on high speed internet access.

I have some friends who do not even have cable internet. They rely on data from their phone plan. When I'm out of town that's basically what I do and get by just fine. I'm certainly not planning to go all frugal and go that route, but it's an option if internet prices get totally out of hand.

 

[bUU]

"One thing I've noticed: the streaming channels often force ads when you are watching a show." But there are options available to watch without advertisements. Just have to pay for them....

Which of course defeats the purpose most cord-cutters have for cord-cutting.

It's interesting that Cable TV companies have not tried providing a higher priced ad-free option in recent years, to keep people from ditching cable.

I suspect they know that it would actually backfire on them, given the unreasonable ire already prevailing with regard to cable pricing. I think the premium channels are, in a way, the means by which such offerings can be made.

I wonder if some cable companies' plan is to discourage cable TV and just provide cable internet to those who are streaming. Then they can raise the price on that.

Surely cable would and is adapting to changing patterns of consumption. Their intention is to keep the various options revenue neutral, since current pricing reflects customer derived value. All things return to steady state eventually.

I have some friends who do not even have cable internet. They rely on data from their phone plan. When I'm out of town that's basically what I do and get by just fine. I'm certainly not planning to go all frugal and go that route, but it's an option if internet prices get totally out of hand.

Our niece is moving in in September. While discussing logistics, it was made clear that she's a member of the generation that consumes television content by way of streaming from Netflix, et. al., to her smartphone. Looking at my 59" HDTV with 5.1 speakers hanging from the ceiling with the cords run through the attic, I couldn't imagine it, but I guess I'm just old school.

 

[Focus]

Our niece is moving in in September. While discussing logistics, it was made clear that she's a member of the generation that consumes television content by way of streaming from Netflix, et. al., to her smartphone. Looking at my 59" HDTV with 5.1 speakers hanging from the ceiling with the cords run through the attic, I couldn't imagine it, but I guess I'm just old school.

I understand the convenience of consuming content on mobile devices, and I stream TV shows via my laptop while traveling, but once you've experienced the theater-like feel of a bigger screen and surround sound, it's hard not to include that in the mix when you're a bit settled.

From this: How millennials will affect the home improvement industry?

Millennials like to entertain, and are looking for homes which support this lifestyle preference. While they may not want or need all the upgrades, they do have some deal-breakers: 59 percent said they’d use extra kitchen space for a television over a second oven while 43 percent said they’d convert a living room into a home theater.

 

[Dawg52]

Originally Posted by W2R
I wonder if some cable companies' plan is to discourage cable TV and just provide cable internet to those who are streaming. Then they can raise the price on that.

Surely cable would and is adapting to changing patterns of consumption. Their intention is to keep the various options revenue neutral, since current pricing reflects customer derived value. All things return to steady state eventually.

I read not long ago that Comcast plans to offer a tv cable like package similar to Sling and Vue via the internet. The report also said it would not count against your data cap. Will be interesting to see the pricing on such a plan.

 

[Greencheese]

I did a mobile phone only stint when I first got out of college a few years ago, and that was before Netflix was available on most Android devices!

Honestly it wasn't that bad and it was nice keeping all of my billing easier by having fewer bills. The savings from all of that were used to pay down my student loans. In addition I was able to tether my laptop to my cell phone so it wasn't like I didn't have conventional internet either. Of course I'm clinging to one of those fabulous Verizon unlimited data plans so YMMV, especially these days.

Not sure if it's still the case but I was able to buy an HDMI adapter and connect my phone to a TV so I didn't even have to watch videos on my phone screen most of the time either.

 

[MichaelB]

I thought the primary motive for cutting cable was price, not ads. The "unreasonable ire" appears somewhat reasonable to me, given the price increased 2.5 times the inflation rate over a decade. From the FCC http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0516/DA-14-672A1.pdf

The average monthly price of expanded basic service (the combined price of basic service and the most subscribed cable programming service tier excluding taxes, fees and equipment charges) for all communities surveyed increased by 5.1 percent over the 12 months ending January 1, 2013, to $64.41, compared to an annual increase of 1.6 percent in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The price of expanded basic service has increased at a compound average annual growth rate of 6.1 percent during the period 1995-2013. The CPI increased at a compound average annual growth rate of 2.4 percent over the same period.

 

[jimbee]

I thought the primary motive for cutting cable was price, not ads. The "unreasonable ire" appears somewhat reasonable to me, given the price increased 2.5 times the inflation rate over a decade. From the FCC http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0516/DA-14-672A1.pdf

+10^12

 

[rodi]

I thought the primary motive for cutting cable was price, not ads. The "unreasonable ire" appears somewhat reasonable to me, given the price increased 2.5 times the inflation rate over a decade. From the FCC http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0516/DA-14-672A1.pdf

ITA!!! Price is the biggest objection I have to the cable operators. And I worked in the cable equipment industry for a few decades.... so my salary was paid, indirectly, by those high prices.... Ironically, over half my coworkers had cut the cord and did NOT have cable service - just internet... entirely due to the price. This was a regular discussion in the development lab.

 

[target2019]

Hey, the millenials spend a lot of time at the office, I hear. Can't bring a 55" into the cubicle. They watch on a 6" screen.

 

[bUU]

I thought the primary motive for cutting cable was price, not ads. The "unreasonable ire" appears somewhat reasonable to me, given the price increased 2.5 times the inflation rate over a decade. From the FCC http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0516/DA-14-672A1.pdf

Television entertainment is a discretionary expense. Comparing its pricing to the cost of bread, milk and eggs is irrelevant. Rather, the price of it and of all discretionary expenses must be compared to United States Disposable Personal Income.

US Disposable Personal Income increased from just below 12,000B to just above 13000B in "the 12 months ending January 1, 2013". So compare that 5.1 percent increase in the cost of cable to the 8.3 percent increase in disposable income.

With that more reasonable comparison, cable looks to be a bargain.

In the longer comparison, 1995-2013, US Disposable Personal Income increased 122.8%, actual. I leave as an exercise for the reader the conversion of that to a compound average growth rate, but I suspect you'll find it pretty comparable to 6.1 percent.

If you want to see an example of something that has increased in price far beyond what is reasonable given inflation in discretionary income, check out the price of Walt Disney World admission tickets. (Hint: One day admission increased from $36-$39 to $97-$105 during the least twenty years or so.)

 

[Focus]

Television entertainment is a discretionary expense. Comparing its pricing to the cost of bread, milk and eggs is irrelevant. Rather, the price of it and of all discretionary expenses must be compared to United States Disposable Personal Income.

US Disposable Personal Income increased from just below 12,000B to just above 13000B in "the 12 months ending January 1, 2013". So compare that 5.1 percent increase in the cost of cable to the 8.3 percent increase in disposable income.

With that more reasonable comparison, cable looks to be a bargain.

What? It's not considered a necessity? Very good points.

 

[audreyh1]

I have some friends who do not even have cable internet. They rely on data from their phone plan. When I'm out of town that's basically what I do and get by just fine. I'm certainly not planning to go all frugal and go that route, but it's an option if internet prices get totally out of hand.

Good point. The cell data offered keeps getting bigger and bigger. With tethering.

 

[bUU]

Good point. The cell data offered keeps getting bigger and bigger. With tethering.

Good thing that Comcast also increased their cap.

Regardless, you point out something very important: A common complaint about cable Internet is that it has no competition. Perhaps without realizing it, you've highlighted that that's not true. Remember, the laws related to competition are rightfully blind to the distribution mechanism. That's why competition from satellite subscription television services were the basis on which the FCC declared effective competition in markets, thereby allowing cable incumbents to competitively price (i.e., increase prices) their basic offerings and encrypt their broadcasts of OTA channels.

 

[ziggy29]

Regardless, you point out something very important: A common complaint about cable Internet is that it has no competition. Perhaps without realizing it, you've highlighted that that's not true. Remember, the laws related to competition are rightfully blind to the distribution mechanism. That's why competition from satellite subscription television services were the basis on which the FCC declared effective competition in markets, thereby allowing cable incumbents to competitively price (i.e., increase prices) their basic offerings and encrypt their broadcasts of OTA channels.

Partially true at the moment, but may become more true over time. Right now many urban areas have several options and there is competition. In more rural areas, there is not so much. As wireless plans increase data caps (or even eliminate them) and there is decent service to small towns, this becomes more real but even most generous data plans have 5-10 GB per month as a maximum, especially without bundled cable or satellite TV service (again, defeating the purpose of cutting the cable).

And also, the eliminated data caps (such as the one AT&T recently rolled out) only apply to folks with qualifying pay TV service, and even that is throttled after 22 GB. (You can't really stream HD quality video for too long even with 22 GB.) Folks "going naked" don't even have that. The most generous data allotments usually seem to require an underlying pay TV subscription.

So that means two options in small towns like mine, neither of which is terribly competitive: satellite internet, which is very expensive, has high latency and has punitively low monthly data caps, or (if any) whatever small town local terrestrial monopoly there might be (in our case, DSL which is 6 Mbps on a good day). It's just good enough that, when we get good throughput, we can stream video on our Roku (but little else). But it stutters and buffers way too much. Still, it's not worth $100 a month on pay TV to avoid that, and I remind myself of that when I'm irritated as periods of buffering and lower picture quality due to times when bandwidth is lower.

 

[bUU]

Partially true at the moment, but may become more true over time.

But that's the point: There's no such thing as "partially true" in this context. The question the regulators and courts ask is whether there is competition, physically accessible to most within the jurisdiction. Yes or no. The fact that one of the competitors has higher prices, or caps and surcharges, matters not one bit with regard to whether there is effective competition.

In more rural areas, there is not so much.

Out west, perhaps, but east of the Missisippi there are relatively few people living in areas served by cable Internet that cannot reach a 3G or 4G cell site, and effective competition is determined by jurisdiction, not determined based on each and every person within the jurisdiction.